Actions from baart006Movable Type Enterprise 4.31-en2011-12-05T14:31:20Zhttp://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=feed&_type=actions&blog_id=14383&id=31455Commented on Following Your Peers in Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/clar0841/psychblog//14383.325947#153190762011-12-05T20:31:20Zbaart006
I wrote the wrong study in, I meant the Milgram experiment.]]>
Posted Following Your Peers to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/clar0841/psychblog//14383.3259472011-12-05T05:17:27Z2011-12-05T05:17:27ZAs we have all seen in class, conformity is a very real part of social psychology. The Solomon Asch study is a prime example of this. In the study it provides evidence that people will go along with authority no matter how dire the consequences. Specifically in this study, people were told to shock other human and when they resisted they were told to continue by a doctor. Many of the participants continued based solely on the fact that it was a doctor that was instructing them. Following authority blindly can be seen all over real life. A large scale example of this would be the Nazi regime in Germany. The people in the Nazi regime followed the orders of Hitler and the results were devastating. On a smaller scale conformity is seen in everyday life with the concept of popular culture. Many kids these days do things to fit in with the crowd. This example of conformity is a very simple and an everyday event that also shows that conformity is huge in today's society. So when you are doing something that you think is truly original, take a look at the people around you, and you may be sadly surpised....baart006http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14383&id=31455
As we have all seen in class, conformity is a very real part of social psychology. The Solomon Asch study is a prime example of this. In the study it provides evidence that people will go along with authority no matter how dire the consequences. Specifically in this study, people were told to shock other human and when they resisted they were told to continue by a doctor. Many of the participants continued based solely on the fact that it was a doctor that was instructing them.

Following authority blindly can be seen all over real life. A large scale example of this would be the Nazi regime in Germany. The people in the Nazi regime followed the orders of Hitler and the results were devastating. On a smaller scale conformity is seen in everyday life with the concept of popular culture. Many kids these days do things to fit in with the crowd. This example of conformity is a very simple and an everyday event that also shows that conformity is huge in today's society.

So when you are doing something that you think is truly original, take a look at the people around you, and you may be sadly surpised.

]]>
Posted Numbers DO Lie to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/clar0841/psychblog//14383.3235402011-11-21T04:56:27Z2011-11-21T04:56:27ZAs many of us have experienced, standardized testing is generally used as a predictor for future success. The two major tests that are generally regarded as two of the most important tests you will ever take are the ACT and SAT for college admissions. Although these tests do show some measure of cognitive ability, they do not accurately predict academic success in higher education. According to a study done by Rebecca Zwick of the Educational Testing Service and Igor Himelfarb of UC Santa Barbra, there are a lot of different problems with only using these types of tests for admissions. One of the main problems stated in the study is that your socioeconomic status plays a large role in how well you do on these tests. This is caused by many different variables. A main one is the availability of resources and quality of schooling throughout the different class levels. This caused an over prediction of first year GPA for African-American and Latino students. This systematic over prediction helps to show that the SAT does not capture all of the necessary factors that go into predicting first year GPA in colleges. With these problems in the standardized tests, I believe that more emphasis should be placed on HSGPA, which showed throughout this study to have predicted first year GPA with a correlation between .59-.89. If the admissions of college are more based on grades rather than a test, students would have a higher rate of success in their first years. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=25&sid=21dfed19-ac98-4abc-a87a-08427c8c609e%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=61816344...baart006http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14383&id=31455
As many of us have experienced, standardized testing is generally used as a predictor for future success. The two major tests that are generally regarded as two of the most important tests you will ever take are the ACT and SAT for college admissions. Although these tests do show some measure of cognitive ability, they do not accurately predict academic success in higher education. According to a study done by Rebecca Zwick of the Educational Testing Service and Igor Himelfarb of UC Santa Barbra, there are a lot of different problems with only using these types of tests for admissions.

One of the main problems stated in the study is that your socioeconomic status plays a large role in how well you do on these tests. This is caused by many different variables. A main one is the availability of resources and quality of schooling throughout the different class levels. This caused an over prediction of first year GPA for African-American and Latino students. This systematic over prediction helps to show that the SAT does not capture all of the necessary factors that go into predicting first year GPA in colleges.

With these problems in the standardized tests, I believe that more emphasis should be placed on HSGPA, which showed throughout this study to have predicted first year GPA with a correlation between .59-.89. If the admissions of college are more based on grades rather than a test, students would have a higher rate of success in their first years.

]]>
Posted 1? 2? Try 8. to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/clar0841/psychblog//14383.3207362011-11-07T05:53:22Z2011-11-07T05:53:22ZHow many intelligences do you truly have? According to Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences the answer is eight. Gardner says that these intelligences include: Logical-Mathematical: This intelligence is the ability to work in logical sequences and work with numbers. Some of the ways to show this is through the computation of complex math problems, thinking scientifically, and recognition of abstract patterns. Spatial: This is the ability to judge objects in space using only the mind and eyes. This is more of an abstract intelligence and it is commonly said that people in the arts such as architects and other design based jobs possess high levels of this intelligence. Linguistic: As the name suggests this has to do with the language aspect of the brain. This can include both written and verbal forms of the language. People with high amounts of this intelligence usually enjoy reading and writing and playing various word games to keep their mind sharp. Musical: This intelligence allows people to very sensitive to sound and the rhythm of music. A very extreme example of this intelligence is people with perfect pitch who are able to tell one note from another just by simply hearing it. Intrapersonal: This is knowing your own self. People with high amounts with this intelligence often like to learn alone and work alone on tasks if given the option. They are also very in touch with their emotions and feelings. Interpersonal: This is the opposite of the intrapersonal intelligence. People with high amounts of this intelligence often like working in groups and learn best through interaction with other people. They also have a strong sense of how people feel around them. Bodily-kinesthetic: The bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is one in which gives you control over your body and the way it moves. This is important in people who do very physically skilled based positions. This also allows people to communicate through body movement and language. Naturalistic: Naturalistic intelligence is the ability to be able to recognize the world around you. Whether this be classifying plants or knowledge such as farming or gardening, the naturalistic intelligence all has to do with you and the world around us. This theory of the multiple intelligences have been very interesting to the teaching community because if Gardener's theory is true then the best way for people to learn would be by combining all of these different ways of learning. One major problem with his theory though is that not all of the different intelligences can be tested in a scientific way, so there is no way to prove his theory of multiple intelligences. If his theory were to be correct however, this may open a new window into teaching and understanding how the mind is able to learn under all different circumstances....baart006http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14383&id=31455
How many intelligences do you truly have? According to Howard Gardner and his theory of multiple intelligences the answer is eight. Gardner says that these intelligences include:

Logical-Mathematical:
This intelligence is the ability to work in logical sequences and work with numbers. Some of the ways to show this is through the computation of complex math problems, thinking scientifically, and recognition of abstract patterns.
Spatial:
This is the ability to judge objects in space using only the mind and eyes. This is more of an abstract intelligence and it is commonly said that people in the arts such as architects and other design based jobs possess high levels of this intelligence.
Linguistic:
As the name suggests this has to do with the language aspect of the brain. This can include both written and verbal forms of the language. People with high amounts of this intelligence usually enjoy reading and writing and playing various word games to keep their mind sharp.
Musical:
This intelligence allows people to very sensitive to sound and the rhythm of music. A very extreme example of this intelligence is people with perfect pitch who are able to tell one note from another just by simply hearing it.
Intrapersonal:
This is knowing your own self. People with high amounts with this intelligence often like to learn alone and work alone on tasks if given the option. They are also very in touch with their emotions and feelings.
Interpersonal:
This is the opposite of the intrapersonal intelligence. People with high amounts of this intelligence often like working in groups and learn best through interaction with other people. They also have a strong sense of how people feel around them.
Bodily-kinesthetic:
The bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is one in which gives you control over your body and the way it moves. This is important in people who do very physically skilled based positions. This also allows people to communicate through body movement and language.
Naturalistic:
Naturalistic intelligence is the ability to be able to recognize the world around you. Whether this be classifying plants or knowledge such as farming or gardening, the naturalistic intelligence all has to do with you and the world around us.

This theory of the multiple intelligences have been very interesting to the teaching community because if Gardener's theory is true then the best way for people to learn would be by combining all of these different ways of learning. One major problem with his theory though is that not all of the different intelligences can be tested in a scientific way, so there is no way to prove his theory of multiple intelligences. If his theory were to be correct however, this may open a new window into teaching and understanding how the mind is able to learn under all different circumstances.

]]>
Posted How Prominent is the Past? to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/clar0841/psychblog//14383.3171142011-10-24T02:46:57Z2011-10-24T02:46:57ZAs we have discussed in class it is very possible for a person to mend their memory into remembering something that had never occurred, what if the opposite was true too? There have been many documented cases where people have repressed memories of traumatic experiences in their lives. Many psychologists believe that in some traumatic experiences the mind will repress any memory of the event into a deep place within the unconscious. These memories may not be lost forever though; some of the memories reveal themselves during therapy sessions or just during everyday life when some action triggers the release of the memory. Such was the case for Eileen Franklin. Eileen Franklin witnessed the murder of her best friend at the age of 8. For many years her memories had gone untapped and unremembered, until one day when playing with her daughter it all began to come back to her. Small pieces at first but then larger portions of her memory came back as time went on. This allowed her to put her father George Franklin on trial for the murder of her best friend that had been committed nearly 20 years in the past. The topic of suppressed memories is widely debated in the field of psychology. Many psychologists believe that there is no such thing as suppressed memory and no way to run experiments to find out the real truth. Most of the instances of suppressed memory are anecdotal and in no way a scientific study. This leads to a lack of good scientific evidence behind either side. With no hard evidence, the question behind suppressed memories may never be answered either way. http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/lof93.htm...baart006http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14383&id=31455
As we have discussed in class it is very possible for a person to mend their memory into remembering something that had never occurred, what if the opposite was true too? There have been many documented cases where people have repressed memories of traumatic experiences in their lives.

Many psychologists believe that in some traumatic experiences the mind will repress any memory of the event into a deep place within the unconscious. These memories may not be lost forever though; some of the memories reveal themselves during therapy sessions or just during everyday life when some action triggers the release of the memory. Such was the case for Eileen Franklin.

Eileen Franklin witnessed the murder of her best friend at the age of 8. For many years her memories had gone untapped and unremembered, until one day when playing with her daughter it all began to come back to her. Small pieces at first but then larger portions of her memory came back as time went on. This allowed her to put her father George Franklin on trial for the murder of her best friend that had been committed nearly 20 years in the past.

The topic of suppressed memories is widely debated in the field of psychology. Many psychologists believe that there is no such thing as suppressed memory and no way to run experiments to find out the real truth. Most of the instances of suppressed memory are anecdotal and in no way a scientific study. This leads to a lack of good scientific evidence behind either side. With no hard evidence, the question behind suppressed memories may never be answered either way.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/lof93.htm

]]>
Posted Are We Really A Blank Slate? to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/clar0841/psychblog//14383.3141252011-10-10T03:53:44Z2011-10-10T03:53:44ZAre we born pre-programmed or are do we start as a blank slate? This is the question that Steven Pinker looks at in his book "The Blank Slate". The Blank Slate theory of Pinker's states that the human mind is an empty vessel with nothing in it but a few basic instincts at birth. This simplification of the mind has raised a lot of controversy over the years. The idea of the blank slate went against the age old theory of divine right of the king or that people are inherently better than other people. Pinker argues that a person's mind and demeanor are shaped by their environment and experiences rather than a pre-programmed mind. This idea of Pinker's can apply to anything from violent tendencies to the level of intelligence in a person. There are a lot of people that argue against Pinker's theory of the Blank Slate, saying that much of the processes in the mind are hereditary and unchangeable. This way of thinking has been studied for many years in twin studies. The twin studies can be used for many different things from intelligence studies to behavioral studies, but the ultimate goal of these is to find out whether the differences are caused by the environment or inherited at berth. With no clear cut answer in the field of psychology, the answer to are we a blank slate may never be answered. So this I leave up to you, are we inherently different or is it the world around us that makes who we are? http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0616S.pdf...baart006http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14383&id=31455
Are we born pre-programmed or are do we start as a blank slate? This is the question that Steven Pinker looks at in his book "The Blank Slate". The Blank Slate theory of Pinker's states that the human mind is an empty vessel with nothing in it but a few basic instincts at birth.
This simplification of the mind has raised a lot of controversy over the years. The idea of the blank slate went against the age old theory of divine right of the king or that people are inherently better than other people. Pinker argues that a person's mind and demeanor are shaped by their environment and experiences rather than a pre-programmed mind. This idea of Pinker's can apply to anything from violent tendencies to the level of intelligence in a person.
There are a lot of people that argue against Pinker's theory of the Blank Slate, saying that much of the processes in the mind are hereditary and unchangeable. This way of thinking has been studied for many years in twin studies. The twin studies can be used for many different things from intelligence studies to behavioral studies, but the ultimate goal of these is to find out whether the differences are caused by the environment or inherited at berth.
With no clear cut answer in the field of psychology, the answer to are we a blank slate may never be answered. So this I leave up to you, are we inherently different or is it the world around us that makes who we are?

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0616S.pdf

]]>
Posted Big Feet, Little Evidence to Psych 1001 Section 010 and 011 Fall 2011tag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/clar0841/psychblog//14383.3120892011-10-03T04:29:29Z2011-10-03T04:29:29ZYou know what big feet mean? Nothing. The myth of Bigfoot has been around since the early 1900's. Although this myth is one of the oldest known, it has some of the least amount of reliable evidence to support the claims. The most famous of this "evidence" is the Patterson footage in 1967. This video catches the supposed creature on camera walking through the woods. This video is a microcosm of the entire myth itself because of the lack of any other proof except for what was seen. Most of the reports are single eyewitness accounts that can be verified in no way. These extraordinary claims of seeing Bigfoot require extraordinary evidence. This principle of scientific thinking cannot be backed up by the evidence that is being found by Bigfoot enthusiasts. The best evidence is a video that has never been confirmed to be true. All of the other evidence is eyewitness accounts late at night in many cases. Another principle of scientific thinking that is broken here is Occams Razor. Many of the eyewitnesses believe that they are hearing or seeing something much more complicated than they actually are. If the principal of Occams Razor is used there are many simpler explanations such as everyday wildlife. The claims around Bigfoot will always exist because of the human fascination for the unknown and unexplainable, but with good scientific procedures maybe the myth surrounding Bigfoot can be solved once and for all. http://www.bfro.net/ Patterson Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o...baart006http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14383&id=31455
You know what big feet mean? Nothing. The myth of Bigfoot has been around since the early 1900's. Although this myth is one of the oldest known, it has some of the least amount of reliable evidence to support the claims.

The most famous of this "evidence" is the Patterson footage in 1967. This video catches the supposed creature on camera walking through the woods. This video is a microcosm of the entire myth itself because of the lack of any other proof except for what was seen. Most of the reports are single eyewitness accounts that can be verified in no way.

These extraordinary claims of seeing Bigfoot require extraordinary evidence. This principle of scientific thinking cannot be backed up by the evidence that is being found by Bigfoot enthusiasts. The best evidence is a video that has never been confirmed to be true. All of the other evidence is eyewitness accounts late at night in many cases.

Another principle of scientific thinking that is broken here is Occams Razor. Many of the eyewitnesses believe that they are hearing or seeing something much more complicated than they actually are. If the principal of Occams Razor is used there are many simpler explanations such as everyday wildlife.

The claims around Bigfoot will always exist because of the human fascination for the unknown and unexplainable, but with good scientific procedures maybe the myth surrounding Bigfoot can be solved once and for all.

]]>
Posted Big Feet, Little Evidence to Big Feet, Little Evidencetag:blog.lib.umn.edu,2011:/baart006/psych_1001 section 010 and 011 fall 2011//14856.3120612011-10-03T03:20:22Z2011-10-03T04:18:09ZYou know what big feet mean? Nothing. The myth of Bigfoot has been around since the early 1900's. Although this myth is one of the oldest known, it has some of the least amount of reliable evidence to support the...baart006http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=view&blog_id=14856&id=31455
You know what big feet mean? Nothing. The myth of Bigfoot has been around since the early 1900's. Although this myth is one of the oldest known, it has some of the least amount of reliable evidence to support the claims.

The most famous of this "evidence" is the Patterson footage in 1967. This video catches the supposed creature on camera walking through the woods. This video is a microcosm of the entire myth itself because of the lack of any other proof except for what was seen. Most of the reports are single eyewitness accounts that can be verified in no way.

These extraordinary claims of seeing Bigfoot require extraordinary evidence. This principle of scientific thinking cannot be backed up by the evidence that is being found by Bigfoot enthusiasts. The best evidence is a video that has never been confirmed to be true. All of the other evidence is eyewitness accounts late at night in many cases.

Another principle of scientific thinking that is broken here is Occams Razor. Many of the eyewitnesses believe that they are hearing or seeing something much more complicated than they actually are. If the principal of Occams Razor is used there are many simpler explanations such as everyday wildlife.

The claims around Bigfoot will always exist because of the human fascination for the unknown and unexplainable, but with good scientific procedures maybe the myth surrounding Bigfoot can be solved once and for all.
http://www.bfro.net/
Patterson Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJjUt2sXo5o